· Decision of the Complaints Committee 02363-15 Arif v Manchester Evening News
Summary of
complaint
1. Vanessa Arif complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Manchester Evening News had breached Clause 1
(Accuracy), Clause 3 (Privacy) and Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock) of
the Editors’ Code of Practice in an article headlined “Rochdale Canal killer
Jack Smith confesses to TEN unsolved crimes and gets extra jail time”,
published on 26 March 2015.
2. The article reported that Jack Smith, a convicted
murderer, had confessed to ten unsolved offences, including the burglary of the
complainant’s house. The article stated that photographs of the complainant’s
late husband, who was murdered in 2006 by an actor who used to appear in TV
drama “Shameless”, had been lost in the burglary.
3. The complainant said the newspaper had inaccurately
reported in the online article that her husband had been murdered in a “racist
attack”; it had been a revenge attack. She expressed concern that the
inaccuracy had stirred up racial tensions within her community. She noted that
she had lost “in the region of £5,000” in goods in the burglary, not £2,000 in
goods, as reported.
4. The complainant considered that the connection the
newspaper had drawn between her husband’s murder and the story, the publication
of his photograph, and the reference to stolen photographs, had been
insensitive and represented an intrusion into her personal grief. She
considered that the newspaper had deliberately made reference to her husband’s
case because of the notoriety of his murderer.
5. She said the publication of her name and address, the
name of her teenage son and a link to an article that contained his photograph,
and extracts from her Witness Impact Statement, which had been read out during
the proceedings against Jack Smith, had represented an intrusion into her
privacy. She said she had serious concerns for her family’s safety as a result
of the article, and requested compensation to help them to relocate.
6. The newspaper said it appreciated that the report had
been upsetting for the complainant to read, but it said her husband’s murder
had been reported previously, and repeating that report did not represent an
intrusion into grief in breach of the Editors’ Code.
7. The newspaper accepted, however, that the motive
behind the murder was revenge and not race, and it apologised for the
inaccuracy in the online article. It said it had sourced the information from
the complainant’s son’s Just Giving fundraising page, in which he had stated
that his father had been murdered by a man who was “on bail for another racist
attack”. The newspaper did not consider that this was a significant inaccuracy.
Nonetheless, it offered to correct the detail online and to append the
following note:
This article has been amended to make clear that Changez
Arif was murdered by Michael Skeffington in a revenge attack, not a racist
attack.
8. The newspaper said the complainant’s address had been
mentioned in court, and was not private. It also noted that her name had been
in the public domain following her husband’s murder, and it had been given in
court during Jack Smith’s trial. The newspaper said the murder was relevant to
the story because the complainant had provided a Witness Impact Statement,
which was read out in court, and which stated that she was still grieving for
her late husband, and that photographs of him had been lost in the burglary.
Due to the complainant’s concerns, however, the newspaper removed her name and
address from the online article.
9. The newspaper said it had made reference to the
complainant’s son because it had previously published a story on his
fundraising efforts following the death of his father. It provided a link to
the article and noted that the story was published with the complainant’s
consent and had quoted her. It removed the link to the fundraising story from
the article in response to the complaint.
Relevant Code Provisions
10. Clause 1 (Accuracy)
i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.
ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the Regulator,
prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance.
Clause 3 (Privacy)
i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private
and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital
communications.
ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into
any individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the
complainant's own public disclosures of information.
iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in
private places without their consent. Note - Private places are public or
private property where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Clause 5 (Intrusion into grief or shock)
i) In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries
and approaches must be made with sympathy and discretion and publication
handled sensitively. This should not restrict the right to report legal
proceedings, such as inquests.
Findings of the Committee
11. The Committee wished to extend its sympathy to the
complainant and her family for their loss.
12. The newspaper had inaccurately reported that the
complainant’s husband had been murdered in a “racist attack”. It had sourced
this information from the complainant’s son’s Just Giving fundraising page,
which had implied that his father’s murder had been racially motivated. The
newspaper’s reliance on this information did not represent a failure to take
care over the article’s accuracy. There was no breach of Clause 1 (i) on this
point.
13. It was accepted that the murder had been motivated by
revenge, and not race. The Committee considered that this represented a
significant inaccuracy that required correction. The newspaper had already
corrected the online article and had offered to append a footnote that made
clear that this detail had been amended. As the error had only appeared online
and not in print, this was sufficient to meet the terms of Clause 1 (ii). There
was no breach of the Code on this point.
14. The complainant had expressed concern that the
newspaper had misreported the value of the goods she had lost in the burglary.
The article, however, had made reference to the total value of goods stolen
from three addresses. It had not specified the value of the complainant’s
stolen property. The Committee did not consider that this was a significant
point that would require correction under the terms of Clause 1.
15. The Committee noted the complainant’s concern that
the newspaper had published private information about her and her son. The
complainant’s name, address and Witness Impact Statement had, however, been
read out during the course of court proceedings. The information was in the
public domain and was not private. The newspaper had also previously published
an article about the complainant’s son’s fundraising efforts, which had
included his name and photograph. The publication of a link to that article did
not represent a breach of Clause 3. In light of the complainant’s concerns for
her family’s safety, however, the Committee welcomed the newspaper’s decision
to remove the link, and her name and address from the online article. The
complaint under Clause 3 was not upheld.
16. The terms of Clause 5 relate to the conduct of
journalists, and the sensitivity of articles, in cases involving grief or
shock. While the Committee understood that the article had been upsetting for
the complainant to read, a connection between her husband’s murder and the
burglary had been drawn during the proceedings against Jack Smith. The
newspaper had been entitled to publish the article, and it had handled the
story with appropriate sensitivity. There was no breach of Clause 5.
Conclusions
17. The complaint was not upheld.
Remedial Action Required
N/A
Date complaint received: 31/03/2015